Jews against Zionism....The News you never see on TV

[Everythingg]

Matrilineal descent—as attested in the Mishna and discussed in the Gemara (Kiddushin 66b and Kiddushin 68b, resp.)—is in fact derived from the written Torah (Exodus 21:4, Deuteronomy 7:3-4; also see Leviticus 24:10). Moreover, postexilic portions of the Hebrew Bible appear to be familiar with a matrilineal descent system (Ezra 10:2-3, Nehemiah 13:23).

None of those verses say anything about matriarchy. Just because a mother/women is mentioned in the verse doesnt mean that what is being referenced represents matriarchy. Matriarchy represents descent being identified thru the female lineage. Or leadership being thru the mother. You wont find that in the bible.. But when you say this:

Tribal identity is patrilineal
Jewish status is matrilineal

It illustrates my point. The people who claim "Jewish status" present this status as if its tribal. Yet in the bible, theres no mention of "Jewish status" while there is mention of "tribal identity" and this identity is only identified by the father. Hence, the "sons of Jacob" title that is mentioned so much. The only way both can be simultaneously true is if one is a separate idea than the other. Which "Jewish" status is...

 

[Koichos]

None of those verses say anything about matriarchy.

Let's not confuse matriliny (determination of kinship through females) with matriarchy (rule by females).

Just because a mother/women is mentioned in the verse doesnt mean that what is being referenced represents matriarchy.

Biblical exegesis requires more than, "Just because".

Spoiler

Exodus 21:4
"If his master gives him a wife, and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and he shall go out alone."

Per Torah law (see Exodus 21:9), an Israelite master is prohibited from giving a Jewish bondmaid as a wife to anyone other than his own son. Therefore, Exodus 21:9 must refer to a gentile bondmaid given as a wife to a Hebrew slave. The children remain slaves when their father is freed, which demonstrates that they bear their mother's non-Jewish status.

-

Deuteronomy 7:3-4
"You shall not intermarry with them; you shall not give your daughter to his son, and you shall not take his daughter for your son."
"For he will turn away your son from following Me, and they will worship the gods of others, and the wrath of the Lord will be kindled against you, and He will quickly destroy you."


One possibility is that the verse is speaking of the son of your daughter—as grandsons are often called sons in the Hebrew Bible. She is the one mentioned first in the verse, who was taken by a non-Jewish man—that is the “he” that is turning that grandson away. But that grandson is still considered your son. Thus, we see that the child of a Jewish woman, even when the father is a gentile, is still considered Jewish—”your son.”

The other possibility is that this is speaking of your son, the one who took a non-Jewish woman. The “he” that is turning him away is his non-Jewish father-in-law. By marrying out of the Jewish people, your son has been turned away from G‑d, because his children will not be Jewish.

Either way leads to the same conclusion.

-

Ezra 10:2-3
"And Shechaniah, the son of Jehiel, of the sons of Elam, raised his voice and said to Ezra, "We have betrayed our G-d, and we have taken in foreign wives of the peoples of the land, but now there is hope for Israel concerning this."

"And now, let us make a covenant with our G-d to cast out all the wives and their offspring, by the counsel of the Lord and those who hasten to [perform] the commandment of our G-d, and according to the Law it shall be done."


Note that Shechaniah states, “and according to the Law [Torah] it shall be done.” If the child of a Jewish father is Jewish, why did Shechaniah suggest expulsion of the children born to these women?

It illustrates my point. The people who claim "Jewish status" present this status as if its tribal. Yet in the
bible, theres no mention of "Jewish status" while there is mention of "tribal identity" and this identity is only identified by the father. Hence, the "sons of Jacob" title that is mentioned so much. The only way both can be simultaneously true is if one is a separate idea than the other. Which "Jewish" status is...

You have to be a Jew by one set of criteria before you can even ask about tribal affiliation according to the other set. The child of a non-Jewish woman is not a Jew, and thus cannot be a member of a tribe. A man who has a child by a non-Jewish woman is not considered to have fulfilled the mitzvah of Pru U'Rvu and the child has no connection with him (the child is not Jewish). This is analogous to the case of the person who blasphemed in the desert (Leviticus 24:10). The meforshim (Ramban, Rashi, Medrash) explain that he was the son of a Jewish woman (and so Jewish), but because his father was a gentile he could not be a member of the tribe of Dan. What's more, under no circumstances can a convert become a member of a tribe (no matter who his father was). Even if a Kohen marries a convert (which Halakha forbids, but if he did), so that his children are Jewish, those children are not Kohanim but Challalim (i.e., non-Kohanim who lose the rights of honor that a Kohen has). Sons born to such unions do not inherit their father's Kohen status, and daughters may not marry a Kohen.

 

[Everythingg]

Let's not confuse matriliny (determination of kinship through females) with matriarchy (rule by females).

Point taken.

Biblical exegesis requires more than, "Just because".

Spoiler

Exodus 21:4
"If his master gives him a wife, and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and he shall go out alone."

Per Torah law (see Exodus 21:9), an Israelite master is prohibited from giving a Jewish bondmaid as a wife to anyone other than his own son. Therefore, Exodus 21:9 must refer to a gentile bondmaid given as a wife to a Hebrew slave. The children remain slaves when their father is freed, which demonstrates that they bear their mother's non-Jewish status.

-

Deuteronomy 7:3-4
"You shall not intermarry with them; you shall not give your daughter to his son, and you shall not take his daughter for your son."
"For he will turn away your son from following Me, and they will worship the gods of others, and the wrath of the Lord will be kindled against you, and He will quickly destroy you."


One possibility is that the verse is speaking of the son of your daughter—as grandsons are often called sons in the Hebrew Bible. She is the one mentioned first in the verse, who was taken by a non-Jewish man—that is the “he” that is turning that grandson away. But that grandson is still considered your son. Thus, we see that the child of a Jewish woman, even when the father is a gentile, is still considered Jewish—”your son.”

The other possibility is that this is speaking of your son, the one who took a non-Jewish woman. The “he” that is turning him away is his non-Jewish father-in-law. By marrying out of the Jewish people, your son has been turned away from G‑d, because his children will not be Jewish.

Either way leads to the same conclusion.

-

Ezra 10:2-3
"And Shechaniah, the son of Jehiel, of the sons of Elam, raised his voice and said to Ezra, "We have betrayed our G-d, and we have taken in foreign wives of the peoples of the land, but now there is hope for Israel concerning this."

"And now, let us make a covenant with our G-d to cast out all the wives and their offspring, by the counsel of the Lord and those who hasten to [perform] the commandment of our G-d, and according to the Law it shall be done."


Note that Shechaniah states, “and according to the Law [Torah] it shall be done.” If the child of a Jewish father is Jewish, why did Shechaniah suggest expulsion of the children born to these women?

If what you're saying is true, then David would be considered a moabite like his mother was. Yet he was made King and talked glowingly of all throughout the old testament. What gives?

You have to be a Jew by one set of criteria before you can even ask about tribal affiliation according to the other set. The child of a non-Jewish woman is not a Jew, and thus cannot be a member of a tribe. A man who has a child by a non-Jewish woman is not considered to have fulfilled the mitzvah of Pru U'Rvu and the child has no connection with him (the child is not Jewish). This is analogous to the case of the person who blasphemed in the desert (Leviticus 24:10). The meforshim (Ramban, Rashi, Medrash) explain that he was the son of a Jewish woman (and so Jewish), but because his father was a gentile he could not be a member of the tribe of Dan. What's more, under no circumstances can a convert become a member of a tribe (no matter who his father was). Even if a Kohen marries a convert (which Halakha forbids, but if he did), so that his children are Jewish, those children are not Kohanim but Challalim (i.e., non-Kohanim who lose the rights of honor that a Kohen has). Sons born to such unions do not inherit their father's Kohen status, and daughters may not marry a Kohen.

You keep talking "Jewish" (i.e. cac created Talmud) while Im talking the scriptures (not cac created). The scriptures do not establish lineage being determined through the mother. If it did, to repeat myself, then David would be considered a moabite like his mother was and not an Israelite like his father was. Which one does the bible recognize him as? Moses had children with an ethiopian. Do you think his children were regarded as Ethiopian?

It seems like you're conflating what the Talmud says (has nothing to do with the bible or the writers of the bible) that came thru the hands of people who have NOTHING to do with the bible, with the scriptures. Scriptures werent written by the ancestors of the people who call themselves "Jewish"...

 

[Koichos]

If what you're saying is true, then David would be considered a moabite like his mother was. Yet he was made King and talked glowingly of all throughout the old testament. What gives?

David's mother, Nitzevet—Natzvat Bat Ade'lai (see Bava Batra 91a), granddaughter of Abeson of Bethlehem—was an Israelite.

You keep talking "Jewish" (i.e. cac created Talmud) while Im talking the scriptures (not cac created).

The word "Jew" is a relic of the exilic period, originating in a time of great national distress and trauma. The word "Jew" first appears in the Biblical record in the Book of Esther (see Esther 2:5), which describes historical events that happened to the Israelites that were taken as captives into Babylonia, ca. 356 BCE. It is here, in this record of captivity that the word is first used to describe the captives from the land of Israel. It is important to note that the origins of this term are not a self-identification used by the Israelites, but rather an imposed identification invented by their captors. This term was forced upon the Israelites by an occupying power that was intent upon consolidating its own territories and controlling the native population.

The scriptures do not establish lineage being determined through the mother. If it did, to repeat myself, then David would be considered a moabite like his mother was and not an Israelite like his father was. Which one does the bible recognize him as? Moses had children with an ethiopian. Do you think his children were regarded as Ethiopian?

"Conversion" in the preexilic period is marriage with an Israelite spouse—a procedure presumed by the Bible and still presumed by Josephus. The preexilic portions of the Bible do not have a word for "convert" because the notion of conversion (circumcision, immersion) did not yet exist. A woman "converted" to Judaism through marriage with an Israelite husband. In this period foreign women assimilate into the body politic of Israel by assimilating into the body matrimonial. By marrying Israelite men, these women would automatically adopt the clan, tribe, nation, and, consequently, religion of their husbands. There is, in turn, no blemishing of the legitimacy of the offspring born to these unions.

It seems like you're conflating what the Talmud says (has nothing to do with the bible or the writers of the bible) that came thru the hands of people who have NOTHING to do with the bible, with the scriptures. Scriptures werent written by the ancestors of the people who call themselves "Jewish"...

The written Torah is impossible to understand clearly without the explanations that G-d gave Moses, and passed down orally throughout the generations. Even the Oral Tradition could not specify exactly what we are supposed to do in every situation, and required interpretation. In the absence of the Mishna, Talmud, and Halakha, one must follow the superficial understanding of the Torah.

 

[Everythingg]

David's mother, Nitzevet—Natzvat Bat Ade'lai (see Bava Batra 91a), granddaughter of Abeson of Bethlehem—was an Israelite.

I was referring to Ruth the moabite. How can David be an Israelite if his grandmother was a moabite? And according to you, things are to be look at thru the mother's lineage?

The word "Jew" is a relic of the exilic period, originating in a time of great national distress and trauma. The word "Jew" first appears in the Biblical record in the Book of Esther (see Esther 2:5), which describes historical events that happened to the Israelites that were taken as captives into Babylonia, ca. 356 BCE. It is here, in this record of captivity that the word is first used to describe the captives from the land of Israel. It is important to note that the origins of this term are not a self-identification used by the Israelites, but rather an imposed identification invented by their captors. This term was forced upon the Israelites by an occupying power that was intent upon consolidating its own territories and controlling the native population.

Ok. My point has been that there is a differentiation between "Jewish" and biblical "Israelite". Which is why, again, the biblical Israelites looked that things thru the father's lineage while the "Jewish" person looks at it thru the mother's lineage. You bringing up conversion just further proves this point as all a foreigner in the bible had to do was believe as the Israelites did. No mentioning of a conversion or immersion process till the "Jewish" people came from wherever they came from...

"Conversion" in the preexilic period is marriage with an Israelite spouse—a procedure presumed by the Bible and still presumed by Josephus. The preexilic portions of the Bible do not have a word for "convert" because the notion of conversion (circumcision, immersion) did not yet exist. A woman "converted" to Judaism through marriage with an Israelite husband. In this period foreign women assimilate into the body politic of Israel by assimilating into the body matrimonial. By marrying Israelite men, these women would automatically adopt the clan, tribe, nation, and, consequently, religion of their husbands. There is, in turn, no blemishing of the legitimacy of the offspring born to these unions.

Its like you're trying to prove my point. Moses married a foreigner and had Israelite children. The grandfather of David did, and he still had Israelite children. Then later, outside of the bible, "someone" Jewish decides its actually through the mother that lineage is determined? As I said in the beginning, it cant be both. If you want to separate the identity of being "Jewish" from the biblical identity of an Israelite, then be my guest because I agree with that. They cant be the same as determined by what I've said and what you've said.

The written Torah is impossible to understand clearly without

Deuteronomy 30
11 Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach.

Hopefully you understand why I'd believe Moses over you...

 

[Koichos]

I was referring to Ruth the moabite. How can David be an Israelite if his grandmother was a moabite?

Ruth is David's paternal great-grandmother.

The term "Moabitess" does not necessarily indicate Ruth was a descendant of Moab. If we fail to diligently study other scriptures and their context, we could make a similar mistake and conclude that Moses was a descendant of Mizraim (Ex 2:18-21). On the surface it may seem Ruth was a descendant of Moab, but when the evidence is closely examined, it points to the notion she was most likely an Israelite. Ruth, living in the sadeh or plains of Moab in Reuben’s territory, being called a Moabite woman is no different than Samuel calling the Israelite women living in the land of Gilead, "women of Jabesh Gilead" (Judges 21:14). It was Samuel’s preference to identify Israelites based on the land or city they occupied instead of their tribal designation. He called Abdon, a judge of Ephraim, not a son of an Ephraimite, but a Pirathonite—a city in the land of Ephraim. Similarly, he called Adriel a Meholathite; Meholah was a city in either Manasseh or Issachar (1 Sam 18:19). Samuel never used the tribal designation Reubenite, Gadite, or Manassite in the singular or plural in any of the writings attributed to him in describing Israelites living east of the Jordan in the land of Moab/Gilead. He exclusively referred to Israelites living in the sadeh of Moab (in Reuben’s territory- Num 21:20; Jos 13:15-17) and Gilead (Gad’s and Manasseh’s land), north of the Arnon, as Moabite(ess) (Rth 1:22; 2:2,6, 21; 4:5, 10) and Gileadite(s) (Jdg 10:3; 11:1,40; 12:7). Moreover, we know that Elijah the prophet was an Israelite, yet he is referred to as "Elijah the Tishbite" (1 Kings 21:17); and Gershom, Moses' son, was called a stranger [ger] (Ex 18:3). The same term [ger] is used in Leviticus 19:33 and in Exodus 2:22, the latter in reference to Moses himself.

As far as Ruth being a stranger: The Ancient Hebrew Lexicon of The Bible, which defines Hebrew terms in their ancient context, defines the term as—(נכרי NKRY)—Foreigner: One who is not known. It can describe someone of foreign descent (non-Israelite-Jdg 19:12) or an Israelite who is simply unknown or unfamiliar (Psalm 69:8). The context would dictate the correct definition. The end of Ruth 2:11 confirms the unknown, unfamiliar definition for Ruth who came to a people she “did not know before”. She was a “stranger” to Judah because she came from another tribe east of the Jordan—Reuben. Ruth and her sister Orpah, living in the sadeh of Moab, in Reuben's territory, are referred to as "women of Moab" [מוֹאָבִי] (Rth 1:4), as opposed to "daughters of Moab" [מוֹאָב]. The former, "women of Moab" [מוֹאָבִי Mow'abiy], denotes a citizen or inhabitant of the land of Moab; the latter, "daughters of Moab" [מוֹאָב Mow'ab], refers specifically to the descendants of the son of Lot. It must be noted that Ruth is never referred to as one of the "daughters of Moab" [מוֹאָב], but rather as one of the "women of Moab" [מוֹאָבִי]. Although it has been assumed over the ages, due to her label as a "Moabitess", nowhere does it ever say Ruth was a "gentile" or "goy". The author of the books of Judges, Ruth and Samuel (most likely Samuel), had a curious habit of referring to Israelites based on the land or city they occupied instead of their tribal name. He referred to Israelites who at the time occupied lands known as Timnah, Gilead and Ephrath as Timnites (Jdg 15:6), Gileadites (Jdg 12:4) and Ephrathites (1 Sam 17:12). Would it not be consistent for Samuel to also refer to Israelites living in the territory referred to as the plains/fields of “Moab” as Moabites(s)?

No mentioning of a conversion or immersion process till the "Jewish" people came from wherever they came from...

Preexilic Israel did not have a constitution for conversion because the people, land, and G-d of Israel were indissolubly bound together. As long as Israel was a collection of tribes living on its own land with its own government and worshipping its ancestral god, tribal and cultic status were determined by birth and the idea of conversion could not develop. Once, however, the Israelites ceased to be a nation like the other nations; once the Temple was destroyed, the Jews exiled, political independence lost, and the tribal structure destroyed; once these things happened, the religious component of Israelite identity became paramount and the idea of conversion could begin to take hold. Israelites became Jews and Israelite religion became Judaism. A gentile could not become an Israelite, but he could become a Jew. But even after the Sixth Century BCE Judaism did not lose its national component, and the extent to which nationhood remained (and remains) part of the Jewish identity is the extent to which converts were (and are) removed from full equality within the native born.

The national aspect of conversion explains why it was not until the Sixth Century BCE that the Jews began to develop the idea of conversion. No longer blocked by a tribal structure and national existence, the path was now open for outsiders to enter the portals of Judaism. Conversion to Judaism by men is first attested in the Sixth and Fifth Centuries BCE; its identification with circumcision is first attested (aside from the ambiguous story in Gen. 34) in the Second Century BCE. Few texts of the Second Temple period, however, speak of the conversion of women. No pretannaitic text either describes or requires immersion (tevilah) and sacrifice (korban) as part of the conversion process. Gradually, however, conversion for women was introduced. This process is underway in the latter part of the Second Temple period but is not complete until the second century of our era, when immersion for women (and men) are firmly attested for the first time. The gentile woman who converted was now a person whose Jewishness could be determined independent of her Jewish husband.

Then later, outside of the bible, "someone" Jewish decides its actually through the mother that lineage is determined?

There are many biblical precedents for which a matrilineal descent system can be gleaned, certainly by the time of Ezra and Nehemiah. We are told that marriage with a non-Jewish wife leads to the diluting of the "holy seed" (zera` ha-qodesh, Ezra 9:2); all the foreign wives "and their children" are cast out "according to the Law" (Ezra 10:2-3). The stories of Abraham, Moses, and others that are foundational to Judaism were given their final form in the Sixth Century BCE, following the destruction of the First Temple in 586 BCE. The Babylonian exile destroyed the old tribal structure. New ideas and institutions began to penetrate Israelite life, and Israelite religion was on its way to becoming postbiblical Judaism. With the dissolution or, at least, weakening, of the bond between G-d, land, and nation, the idea of conversion could flourish. In the transition period matters are unsettled; Ezra seeks to outlaw all intermarriages (in consonance with postbiblical Judaism) but is still unaware of conversion (like biblical Israel). By the time of the Maccabees, conversion, ritually defined as circumcision, is securely in place.

The primary outlet for rabbinic creativity was, of course, law. To what extent rabbinic laws were “traditional”, that is, of pre-70 CE origin, and to what extent they were innovated by the rabbis themselves, is the subject of scholarly dispute. In order to explain matriliny Victor Aptowitzer suggests not societal need but social tradition. It is said to be a relic of very ancient times when Israelite kinship was matrilineal and Israelite society was matriarchal. Aptowitzer offers a striking parallel to the rabbinic law from Herodotus' description of the Lycians (1.173): "Their customs are in part Cretan and in part Carian. But they have one which is their own and shared by no other men; they take their names not from their fathers but from their mothers; and when one is asked by his neighbor who he is, he will say that he is the son of such a mother, and recount the mother of his mother. Indeed, if a female citizen marries a slave, her children are considered pure-born; but if a male citizen, even the most prominent of them, takes a foreign wife or concubine, the children are dishonored, though he be the first in the land."

As I said in the beginning, it cant be both.

There is a difference between tribal identity within the Jewish nation and being a member of the Jewish people altogether. This patriliny-matriliny bifurcation has been adhered to by virtually all of world Jewry for at least the last two millennia. Because of its endogamic nature, the patrilineal principle can be applied only to those unions which take place within the "clan" (or "family") limits, that is, when both the mother and the father are Jewish (Numbers 1:2). Once the mother is Jewish, and the father is also Jewish, then the specific affiliation of the children within the Jewish People is patrilineal regarding whether a person is a Kohen, Levi or Yisrael. Traditionally, women adopt the status of their husband, thus if a bat Kohen (daughter of a Kohen) marries a Yisrael (a lay Jew; a non-Levi, non-Kohen), she and her children are Yisraelim. Today, much like biblical times, priest, Levite and Israelite status is determined by the lineage of the father; however, in accordance with postbiblical Judaism, conveyance of this status first requires a legitimate marriage, that is, a marriage which takes place within the peoplehood.

 

[Everythingg]

Ruth is David's paternal great-grandmother.

The term "Moabitess" does not necessarily indicate Ruth was a descendant of Moab. If we fail to diligently study other scriptures and their context, we could make a similar mistake and conclude that Moses was a descendant of Mizraim (Ex 2:18-21). On the surface it may seem Ruth was a descendant of Moab, but when the evidence is closely examined, it points to the notion she was most likely an Israelite. Ruth, living in the sadeh or plains of Moab in Reuben’s territory, being called a Moabite woman is no different than Samuel calling the Israelite women living in the land of Gilead, "women of Jabesh Gilead" (Judges 21:14). It was Samuel’s preference to identify Israelites based on the land or city they occupied instead of their tribal designation. He called Abdon, a judge of Ephraim, not a son of an Ephraimite, but a Pirathonite—a city in the land of Ephraim. Similarly, he called Adriel a Meholathite; Meholah was a city in either Manasseh or Issachar (1 Sam 18:19). Samuel never used the tribal designation Reubenite, Gadite, or Manassite in the singular or plural in any of the writings attributed to him in describing Israelites living east of the Jordan in the land of Moab/Gilead. He exclusively referred to Israelites living in the sadeh of Moab (in Reuben’s territory- Num 21:20; Jos 13:15-17) and Gilead (Gad’s and Manasseh’s land), north of the Arnon, as Moabite(ess) (Rth 1:22; 2:2,6, 21; 4:5, 10) and Gileadite(s) (Jdg 10:3; 11:1,40; 12:7). Moreover, we know that Elijah the prophet was an Israelite, yet he is referred to as "Elijah the Tishbite" (1 Kings 21:17); and Gershom, Moses' son, was called a stranger [ger] (Ex 18:3). The same term [ger] is used in Leviticus 19:33 and in Exodus 2:22, the latter in reference to Moses himself.

Im reading what you're saying bruh, but I like to keep things somewhat short. The walls are not necessary to get your point over. But anyways can you pull out a verse, that shows an Israelite being called by the name of another tribe? Moab was a tribe. Saying an Israelite was a Moabite is like saying an Israelite is an Edomite. Its saying that the person is of whole other lineage that takes them AWAY from the PROMISE that the lineage they were part of comes with. To my understanding none of your examples (Gilead, Meholathite, Pirathonite) designate tribal status. Again saying a person is of another tribe, especially Moab, is taking them out of the people they belong to (Deuteronomy 23:3:No ammonite shall enter the Lord's congregation).

As far as Ruth being a stranger: The Ancient Hebrew Lexicon of The Bible, which defines Hebrew terms in their ancient context, defines the term as—(נכרי NKRY)—

Foreigner: One who is not known. It can describe someone of foreign descent (non-Israelite-Jdg 19:12) or an Israelite who is simply unknown or unfamiliar (Psalm 69:8). The context would dictate the correct definition. The end of Ruth 2:11 confirms the unknown, unfamiliar definition for Ruth who came to a people she “did not know before”. She was a “stranger” to Judah because she came from another tribe east of the Jordan—Reuben. Ruth and her sister Orpah, living in the sadeh of Moab, in Reuben's territory, are referred to as "women of Moab" [מוֹאָבִי] (Rth 1:4), as opposed to "daughters of Moab" [מוֹאָב]. The former, "women of Moab" [מוֹאָבִי Mow'abiy], denotes a citizen or inhabitant of the land of Moab; the latter, "daughters of Moab" [מוֹאָב Mow'ab], refers specifically to the descendants of the son of Lot. It must be noted that Ruth is never referred to as one of the "daughters of Moab" [מוֹאָב], but rather as one of the "women of Moab" [מוֹאָבִי]. Although it has been assumed over the ages, due to her label as a "Moabitess", nowhere does it ever say Ruth was a "gentile" or "goy". The author of the books of Judges, Ruth and Samuel (most likely Samuel), had a curious habit of referring to Israelites based on the land or city they occupied instead of their tribal name. He referred to Israelites who at the time occupied lands known as Timnah, Gilead and Ephrath as Timnites (Jdg 15:6), Gileadites (Jdg 12:4) and Ephrathites (1 Sam 17:12). Would it not be consistent for Samuel to also refer to Israelites living in the territory referred to as the plains/fields of “Moab” as Moabites(s)?

I bolded/underlined the important part. They may have identified Israelites by the cities they were in but not by other tribal names. Again, correct me if Im wrong on this by bringing a verse that shows an Israelite being called by another tribal identity. Your Moses example was faulty because Exodus 2:1 tells us he's a Isrealite (Levite) while Ruth was NEVER called an Israelite. So a person mistaking Moses for an Egyptian doesnt override the text calling him an Israelite before that event. Going by the assumption that the writings are what they say they are, what you're saying is that a prophet wrote that an Israelite was from a tribe that was BANNED from being associate with Israelites. So to answer your final question NO it would not be consistent to refer to Israelites as members of another tribe. Every mention you bring is of an Israelite being a citizen of a city (thats not a tribe). Nowhere do they reference an Israelite as a member of another tribe/city except for where you say it does in Ruth. After calling her a Moabite, it says she's a STRANGER/FOREIGNER to other Israelites and you still say we shouldnt go with her being a Moabite? Im not buying it right now. But we'd go further if you could point me out to the verse that refers to an Israelite being referred to with another tribal name like you say Ruth was done with Moab. Moab is from a whole different forefather (Lot) than Israel (Abraham).

Preexilic Israel did not have a constitution for conversion because the people, land, and G-d of Israel were indissolubly bound together. As long as Israel was a collection of tribes living on its own land with its own government and worshipping its ancestral god, tribal and cultic status were determined by birth and the idea of conversion could not develop. Once, however, the Israelites ceased to be a nation like the other nations; once the Temple was destroyed, the Jews exiled, political independence lost, and the tribal structure destroyed; once these things happened, the religious component of Israelite identity became paramount and the idea of conversion could begin to take hold. Israelites became Jews and Israelite religion became Judaism. A gentile could not become an Israelite, but he could become a Jew. But even after the Sixth Century

BCE Judaism did not lose its national component, and the extent to which nationhood remained (and remains) part of the Jewish identity is the extent to which converts were (and are) removed from full equality within the native born.

The national aspect of conversion explains why it was not until the Sixth Century BCE that the Jews began to develop the idea of conversion. No longer blocked by a tribal structure and national existence, the path was now open for outsiders to enter the portals of Judaism. Conversion to Judaism by men is first attested in the Sixth and Fifth Centuries BCE; its identification with circumcision is first attested (aside from the ambiguous story in Gen. 34) in the Second Century BCE. Few texts of the Second Temple period, however, speak of the conversion of women. No pretannaitic text either describes or requires immersion (tevilah) and sacrifice (korban) as part of the conversion process. Gradually, however, conversion for women was introduced. This process is underway in the latter part of the Second Temple period but is not complete until the second century of our era, when immersion for women (and men) are firmly attested for the first time. The gentile woman who converted was now a person whose Jewishness could be determined independent of her Jewish husband.


There are many biblical precedents for which a matrilineal descent system can be gleaned, certainly by the time of Ezra and Nehemiah. We are told that marriage with a non-Jewish wife leads to the diluting of the "holy seed" (zera` ha-qodesh, Ezra 9:2); all the foreign wives "and their children" are cast out "according to the Law" (Ezra 10:2-3). The stories of Abraham, Moses, and others that are foundational to Judaism were given their final form in the Sixth Century BCE, following the destruction of the First Temple in 586 BCE. The Babylonian exile destroyed the old tribal structure. New ideas and institutions began to penetrate Israelite life, and Israelite religion was on its way to becoming postbiblical Judaism. With the dissolution or, at least, weakening, of the bond between G-d, land, and nation, the idea of conversion could flourish. In the transition period matters are unsettled; Ezra seeks to outlaw all intermarriages (in consonance with postbiblical Judaism) but is still unaware of conversion (like biblical Israel). By the time of the Maccabees, conversion, ritually defined as circumcision, is securely in place.

The primary outlet for rabbinic creativity was, of course, law. To what extent rabbinic laws were “traditional”, that is, of pre-70 CE origin, and to what extent they were innovated by the rabbis themselves, is the subject of scholarly dispute. In order to explain matriliny Victor Aptowitzer suggests not societal need but social tradition. It is said to be a relic of very ancient times when Israelite kinship was matrilineal and Israelite society was matriarchal. Aptowitzer offers a striking parallel to the rabbinic law from Herodotus' description of the Lycians (1.173): "Their customs are in part Cretan and in part Carian. But they have one which is their own and shared by no other men; they take their names not from their fathers but from their mothers; and when one is asked by his neighbor who he is, he will say that he is the son of such a mother, and recount the mother of his mother. Indeed, if a female citizen marries a slave, her children are considered pure-born; but if a male citizen, even the most prominent of them, takes a foreign wife or concubine, the children are dishonored, though he be the first in the land."


There is a difference between tribal identity within the Jewish nation and being a member of the Jewish people altogether. This patriliny-matriliny bifurcation has been adhered to by virtually all of world Jewry for at least the last two millennia. Because of its endogamic nature, the patrilineal principle can be applied only to those unions which take place within the "clan" (or "family") limits, that is, when both the mother and the father are Jewish (Numbers 1:2). Once the mother is Jewish, and the father is also Jewish, then the specific affiliation of the children within the Jewish People is patrilineal regarding whether a person is a Kohen, Levi or Yisrael. Traditionally, women adopt the status of their husband, thus if a bat Kohen (daughter of a Kohen) marries a Yisrael (a lay Jew; a non-Levi, non-Kohen), she and her children are Yisraelim. Today, much like biblical times, priest, Levite and Israelite status is determined by the lineage of the father; however, in accordance with postbiblical Judaism, conveyance of this status first requires a legitimate marriage, that is, a marriage which takes place within the peoplehood.

Let me cut to the chase. Were the Israelites black/people of color or white/caucasian? Because what you're saying is that later the people who popped up calling themselves "Jewish" started deciding to add onto what they (and I use that loosely) were originally told to. Remember Deuteronomy 4:2? None of these new rituals existed until the time period you say they did. Which is long after Moses existed. Personally I understand where you're coming from, but you're not speaking real. You're speaking about man made customs that came long after the person who God chose to give His Instruction to existed. They added things they felt were right through their own lens or their personal idols. To add insult to injury, they're not even descendants of the people in the bible (allegedly)...

This long wall of post that I did read, comes down to "God gave His law to Moses but since the circumstances changed, the law had to change by the hands of men who existed centuries later". And thats where these new customs and matriliny comes in. From the hands of man not the Creator like it did with Moses (as far as what the bible says that is).

 

[Koichos]

Im reading what you're saying bruh, but I like to keep things somewhat short. The walls are not necessary to get your point over. But anyways can you pull out a verse, that shows an Israelite being called by the name of another tribe? Moab was a tribe. Saying an Israelite was a Moabite is like saying an Israelite is an Edomite. Its saying that the person is of whole other lineage that takes them AWAY from the PROMISE that the lineage they were part of comes with. To my understanding none of your examples (Gilead, Meholathite, Pirathonite) designate tribal status. Again saying a person is of another tribe, especially Moab, is taking them out of the people they belong to (Deuteronomy 23:3:No ammonite shall enter the Lord's congregation).

Ruth and Orpah are not the only Israelites referred to by geography. 2 Samuel 23, in regard to David's Mighty Warriors, reads: "Among the Thirty were: Ikkesh the Tekoite, Abiezer the Anethothite, Mebunnai the Hushathite, Maharai the Netophathite, Benaiah the Pirathonite, Hiddai of the brooks of Gaash, Abialbon the Arbathite, Azmaveth the Barhumite, Eliahba the Shaalbonite, Shammah the Hararite, Ahiam the son of Sharar the Hararite, Ahithophel the Gilonite, Hezrai the Carmelite, Paarai the Arbite, Zelek the Ammonite, and Naharai the Beerothite." All of these men are Israelites, identified by their respective geographies. It is possible that some of the others in the list (not listed here) are also identified in that manner, but where the references are more obscure, since it is not known whether the name they are identified with is a place or a clan, or even a description of some other sort.

The term "Moabite" is used in a geographic context regarding Ruth, as she is not referred to as one of the "daughters of Moab" [מוֹאָב Mow'ab], that is, as one of the descendants of the son of Lot (tribe); but instead, as one of the "women of Moab" [מוֹאָבִי Mow'abiy]—one of the inhabitants of the land of Moab (geography). These are two different words with two different meanings: "descendants of" [tribe]; cf. "inhabitants of" [geography]. Moreover, under the Joshua period, the Israelites conquered the land of Moab and Ammon from the Amorites (Deut 2:32-34, Num 21:33-35), whom had themselves, formerly overthrown Moab (Num 21:26). The Israelites killed and displaced all of Lot's descendants [מוֹאָב Mow'abiy] whom Sihon (king of the Amorites) had previously brought under his rule (Num 21:29), as well as, of course, the Amorite conquerors, leaving "no survivors" (Deut 2:32-34), and occupying the land for themselves for more than 300 years (Jdg 11:26). From this time on this was purely Israelite territory, for no survivors were spared in the lands of Moab and Ammon. As we are told in Deuteronomy 3:12-16, Reuben and Gad's territory is then integrated into that of Moab and Ammon. The entire area of the Jordan river was settled by the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and half the tribe of Manasseh (Num 32:33).

Fast forward to the middle of this period, about a century or so after the Israelites of the tribes of Reuben and Gad had occupied the land of Moab. Consider Elimelech, a Judahite who, with his wife Naomi and his two sons Mahlon and Chilion, was driven by famine out of Judah. Ruth 1:1 records that he "went to sojourn in the country of Moab". Note the wording: it does not say "among the people", but "in the country of Moab", which was occupied by Israelites exclusively. The Hebrew word used here for "country" is sadeh [שָׂדֶה], which means "plains/fields". Elimelech took his family to the "plains of Moab" in brother Reuben's territory, east of the Jordan. Consider how much more logical it would have been for Elimelech and his Judean family to have sojourned into his “brother's” territory to escape a famine—for Elimelech must have had knowledge of Moab’s refusal to provide his nation with free food and water in the relatively recent past (Deu 23:3-4). This should have naturally produced enough doubt and animosity in Elimelech’s mind to refrain from putting himself and his family at risk of starvation by traveling to Moab's land to escape a famine. Why would any righteous Israelite journey to the land of their arch-enemy to escape a famine; live there ten years; unlawfully intermarry with them; then return to Israel with a daughter from the enemy and have a law-observing Israelite marry her with the elders' uncontested blessing and hail her as the equal of Rachel and Leah (Rth 4:11)?

Ruth and Naomi. In Ruth 1:15, Naomi beseeches Ruth to follow in the footsteps of her sister-in-law and return to her “gods” [elohim—plural]. The Hebrew term “elohim” is generally a plural term. In some cases, it can also take on a singular aspect. Interestingly, there is no agreement between translators on which to utilize in this verse. The scriptures also applies the term "elohim" to human judges and magistrates (Ex 21:5-6; 22:8-9). The Hebrew term for "people" can also be defined as a "tribe" [עַם `am]. Let us alternatively insert the synonymous words “judges” and “tribe” for “elohim” and “`am” respectively, and see if it makes any sense:

Rth 1:15-16: And she [Naomi] said, "Look, your sister-in-law [Orpah] has gone back to her people [tribe] and to Her gods [judges]; return after your sister-in-law." But Ruth said: "Entreat me not to leave you, Or to turn back from following after you; For wherever you go, I will go; And wherever you lodge, I will lodge; Your people [tribe] shall be my people [tribe], And your God [judges], my God [judges].

This translation is consistent with the fact that just prior to entering the promised land in which we later find Ruth and Orpah, Moses commanded each tribe to appoint their own judges, rulers, and officers: Deu 16:18 "You shall appoint judges and officers in all your gates, which the LORD your God gives you, according to your tribes, and they shall judge the people with just judgment." Now notice Ruth 1:1: "Now it came to pass, in the days when the judges ruled …”

So, in Ruth 1:15, Naomi beseeches Ruth to follow in the footsteps of her sister-in-law, Orpah, and return to her “tribe” and to her own “judges” or “rulers” of Israel. Ruth shows her deep love and devotion to her mother-in-law by her willingness to forsake her “tribe” [Reuben] and their “judges” [elohim] in the Israelite territory known as the “sadeh-country/plains of Moab”, and embrace Naomi’s tribe [Judah] and judges [elohim] in Bethlehem-Judah.

We also find evidence of Ruth and Naomi utilizing the term “elohim” for “judges”. At the end of Ruth’s infamous dialogue with Naomi (Rth 1:15), she appeals to the One True G-d to bear witness to her statement and does NOT refer to Him as “elohim”. She creates a distinction from the judges [elohim] in verse 16, by referring to the One True G-d as “LORD” [YHVH] in verse seventeen. Naomi also used the term “LORD” exclusively when speaking of the One True G-d (Rth 1:8, 9,13,21; 2:20). Both Naomi and Ruth demonstrate, beyond question, that they referred to the One True G-d as “LORD” and never "elohim". Thus we can conclude they utilized the term “elohim” to identify their judges. Ruth and Naomi did worship the same one "LORD" because they were tribal sisters: Ruth, from the tribe of Reuben, and Naomi, from the tribe of Judah. Ruth could not have been of any race or nation but Israel, for no others lived in "the plains of Moab". Ruth was merely an Israelite who dwelt in the sadeh of Moab, north of the Arnon in Reuben's territory, at a time when the Israelites held unbroken possession of the land.

Let me cut to the chase. Were the Israelites black/people of color or white/caucasian?

The Arameans Abraham and his family came from lived in settlements in what is now modern-day Syria. In Genesis 28:5 Jacob’s mother and his two wives are also identified as Arameans. In the same verse we learn that Isaac and Jacob marry Aramean women (also see Gen 25:20). Jacob’s sons apparently do not follow this tradition. Judah marries a Canaanite woman (Gen 38:2) and then also fathers twins, Perez and Zerah, by his daughter-in-law Tamar, who is probably also a Canaanite. Genesis 46:10 indicates that Simeon likewise had a Caananite wife. Joseph, after becoming the adviser of Pharaoh, married an Egyptian woman named Asenath (Gen 41:50) who bore him two sons: Manasseh and Ephraim. Thus the biblical tradition presents the ancestors of the tribes of Israel as a mix of western Mesopotamian (Aramean and/or Amorite), Canaanite, and Egyptian. (Hays, J. Daniel, From Every People and Nation, [InterVarsity Press, 2003], p. 32)

Kurdish Jews, Iraqi Jews and the Samaritans of Nablus are perhaps the most suitable proxies for the ancient Israelites that we have today. The Samaritans are descendants of the northern Kingdom of Israel and have remained endogamous for the last ~2,500 years, marrying (literally) within the family [cousins], as opposed to just- within the "family" [tribe]. Like biblical Israel, the children of male Samaritans who marry outsiders are regarded as Samaritan; female Samaritans who marry non-Samaritans are expelled from the sect. In modern Judaism the Samaritans might be comparable to the Karaites, who regard the written Torah as the only authority for Jewish practice. As one would expect—for they were part of the ten northern tribes that made up the Kingdom of Israel—Samaritans are genetically closest to Jews (Ashkenazi, Sephardi, Iraqi, Moroccan, Yemeni, Libyan), with very similar patrilineages; Jews and Samaritans form a central cluster which is separated from non-Jewish populations by principal component analysis. DNA analyses indicate Samaritan and Jewish patrilineages share a common origin dating to before the Babylonian Exile, with mutation rate separation distances of about what you would expect historically. Relative to various Jewish and non-Jewish communities—Libyan Jews, Moroccan Jews, Kohanim, Druze, Bedouins, Iraqi Jews, Ethiopian Jews, Ashkenazi Jews, Palestinians and Yemeni Jews—Samaritans, due to millennia of inbreeding, exhibit the lowest average heterozygosities (gene diversities) and lowest average number of alleles per STR marker. Interestingly, among the various Jewish divisions, Samaritan patrilineages were found to be closest to that of the Kohanim, regardless of ethnic origin: Ashkenazi, Sephardic, Mizrahi or North African.

Samaritans do not consider themselves Jews, but Israelites. For them the Jews are descendants of the Israelites from the ancient southern Kingdom of Judah (and Jerusalem). The Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chayim 215,2 states that if a Kuti [Samaritan] makes a Berakha [blessing] we do not answer "Amein", for a Kuti is not a Jew. The Gemara in Chullin 6a explains that Samaritans were deemed "unreliable", for they were idolaters who worshiped a figure of a Dove at the peak of Mount Gerizim (Samaritans' central sanctuary; cf. Jews and Jerusalem). A decree, subsequently issued by the Rabbis, prohibited [Jews] eating [meat] from the slaughter of a Samaritan; and from drinking their wine; as they were "unreliable". The halakhic status of the Samaritan "is like that of a gentile" (Chullin 6a). Furthermore, Ezra made a ban in Pirkei derabbi Eliezer Ch38 that they cannot ever convert to Judaism given their attempts at sabotaging the Jews' rebuilding of the Temple following their return from the Babylonian Exile: "They made the work of the Lord to cease for two years ["Then ceased the work of the house of G-d, which is at Jerusalem]; and it ceased unto the second year of the reign of Darius, king of Persia (Ezra iv. 24)". Further ahead we read: "and they excommunicated the Cutheans [Samaritans] with the mystery of the Ineffable Name, and with the script such as was written upon the tables (of the Law)...Let no man make a proselyte in Israel from among the Cutheans [Samaritans]...They have no portion in the resurrection of the dead...neither in this world, nor in the world to come...they should have neither portion nor inheritance in Israel, as it is said, 'But ye have no portion, nor right, nor memorial, in Jerusalem' (Neh. ii. 20)".

To add insult to injury, they're not even descendants of the people in the bible (allegedly)...

Kohanim are the longest continuous dynasty (genetically). The Cohen Modal Haplotype (CMH), considered to be the most definitive Jewish (Kohen) genetic pattern, was found in 45% of Ashkenazi Kohanim, 56% of Sephardi Kohanim, and 10%-13% of other Jewish males (i.e., non-Kohanim). This is using the most conservative interpretation of the CMH (6/6 match); if one were to count those with a 5/6 match, the proportions are 69% of Ashkenazi Kohanim, 61% of Sephardi Kohanim, and relatively similar percentages (14-15%) for non-Kohen Jewish males. Among Ashkenazic and Sephardic Israelites (i.e., lay Jews; non-Levi, non-Kohen), the frequencies are, respectively, 13.2% and 9.8%. Similarly, looking at haplogroup J12f2a in a relatively small set of Jewish samples, the CMH was present in (without considering tribal status) 10.1% of Kurdish Jewish [Mizrahi] males, 7.6% of Ashkenazi males, and 6.4% of Sephardi Males. These findings are consistent with the fact that Kurdish Jews represent some of the oldest established populations of Jews, tracing their origins to the Assyrian and Babylonian exiles from the kingdoms of Israel and Judah.

Moreover, almost all Samaritans sampled belong to the Cohen modal cluster. The Samaritans are descendants of the northern Kingdom of Israel and remain a highly endogamous group (~84% of marriages occur between cousins, producing the highest inbreeding coefficient recorded for any population) who remained in a single region for much of their existence, today numbering a mere ~700 individuals representing four large families. The Samaritans comprise four lineages: the Tsdaka lineage, which is claimed to have descended from the tribe of Menasseh; the Joshua-Marhiv and Danfi lineages, claiming descent from the tribe of Ephraim; and the priestly Cohen lineage from the tribe of Levi. Surprisingly, with the exception of one (M67 lineage from the Danfi family), all non-Cohen Samaritan Y-chromosomes belonged to the Cohen modal cluster (Oefner, 2004). Principal component analysis demonstrates a common ancestry of Samaritan and Jewish patrilineages, with most of the former tracing back to a common ancestor in the paternally-inherited Jewish high priesthood at the time of the Assyrian conquest of the Kingdom of Israel.

 

[Everythingg]

Ruth and Orpah are not the only Israelites referred to by geography.

At the end of the day, what you're saying is that its telling us she's a Moabite but wants us to know she's really an Israelite. Again, without ever plainly stating she's a Israelite like it did with Moses before he was called an Egyptian. Now maybe you dont believe the book was inspired, or believe that this was inserted by a lying pen, but if that aint the case then you're just playing gymnastics with it to make it fit what you want it to say. Or what you want others to believe it says



It makes no sense to refer to an Israelite as an Moabite as again, a Moabite cannot be part of Israel according to Deut 23:3. Thus they miss out on an inheritance and promise to the extent of being excluded based on what you say is them "referencing the city" while never explicitly mentioning that they were Israelites. I asked you to bring one verse that shows an explicit Israelite being given the title of another tribe and you just bring more city references..And "David's 30" are never called Israelites either so that falls flat too. The real reason that Ruth it didnt matter that Ruth was a Moabite is because biblically they looked at children as the offspring (i.e. SEED/SPERM) of their fathers. You're typing alot of words but not addressing what Im specifically saying

Samaritans are genetically closest to Jews (Ashkenazi, Sephardi, Iraqi, Moroccan, Yemeni, Libyan), with very similar patrilineages; Jews and Samaritans form a central cluster which is separated from non-Jewish populations by principal component analysis. DNA analyses indicate Samaritan and Jewish patrilineages share a common origin dating to before the Babylonian Exile, with mutation rate separation distances of about what you would expect historically. Relative to various Jewish and non-Jewish communities—Libyan Jews, Moroccan Jews, Kohanim, Druze, Bedouins, Iraqi Jews, Ethiopian Jews, Ashkenazi Jews, Palestinians and Yemeni Jews—Samaritans, due to millennia of inbreeding, exhibit the lowest average heterozygosities (gene diversities) and lowest average number of alleles per STR marker. Interestingly, among the various Jewish divisions, Samaritan patrilineages were found to be closest to that of the Kohanim, regardless of ethnic origin: Ashkenazi, Sephardic, Mizrahi or North African.

Well since you bring up "Ashkenazi"

Genesis 10:2 The sons of Japheth: Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Meshech, and Tiras. 3 The sons of Gomer: Ashkenaz, Riphath, and Togarmah.

From people who considered offspring by their fathers, how could you be an "Ashkenaz" and a "Jew" at the same time? And thats the inherent problem with the people you say are Israelites. They never fit what the scriptures they give us say about the Israelites. The bankers that call themselves Ashkenazi are the ones that supposedly helped set up the nation/state of Israel in the middle east. Dont remember reading about that being what is supposed to happen in the bible. Or how about where Ezekiel says that before the Israelites get their land, they would meet God face to face in the wilderness? Cant say it rings a bell. Being taken to the ends of the earth to be oppressed/enslaved? Dont remember hearing about that happening to the people who are over there either. What gives? I thought they were the people of the book? Why arent things happening to them that are according to the book? See these things are more verifiable then the (fake) DNA interpretations you're providing. We can read what the bible says will be a signs on the descendants of Israel (Deut 28:46) of we can go to your people and have them "interpret" DNA and tell us "the truth". I know where Im standing on that note

 

[Koichos]

The real reason that Ruth it didnt matter that Ruth was a Moabite is because biblically they looked at children as the offspring (i.e. SEED/SPERM) of their fathers.

Nehemiah 13:23-24 demonstrates that the status of a child born to a Jewish father and a Moabite mother is the same as the status of the mother.


Nehemiah 13:23-24
Also in those days, I saw the Jews who had married Ashdodite, Ammonite, and Moabite women.
And half their children were speaking Ashdodite, and they did not know how to speak Hebrew, and [so it was] with the language of every people.

Nehemiah 13:25
So I contended with them and cursed them, struck some of them and pulled out their hair, and made them swear by God, saying, "You shall not give your daughters as wives to their sons, nor take their daughters for your sons or yourselves.

And thats the inherent problem with the people you say are Israelites. They never fit what the scriptures they give us say about the Israelites. The bankers that call themselves Ashkenazi are the ones that supposedly helped set up the nation/state of Israel in the middle east.

The regathering of Israel: Ezekiel 34:11-12, 37:21-22; Jeremiah 23:5-8. In the case of Jeremiah 23:5-8, the regathering in Israel is said to happen after the first-century advent. The regathering of Israel took place in 1948 when we were given our land back in a remarkable episode of history. During this recreation of the State of Israel, we saw mass migration of Jews—from all over—back to Israel, in direct fulfillment of these prophecies.

Biblical scholar Ron Rhodes notes that the aforementioned biblical material, "portrays Israel as becoming a living, breathing nation, brought back from the dead, as it were . . . The year 1948 was pivotal in this regard: In AD 70, Titus and his Roman warriors trampled on and destroyed Jerusalem, definitively ending Israel as a political entity (Luke 21:20) . . . For many centuries since then, the Jews have been dispersed worldwide . . . Israel achieved statehood in 1948, and the Jews have been returning to their homeland ever since. The vision of Ezekiel 37 is coming to pass just as predicted" (Ron Rhodes, The Key Ideas Bible Handbook, [Harvest House Publishers, 2016], p. 184).

We can read what the bible says will be a signs on the descendants of Israel (Deut 28:46) of we can go to your people and have them "interpret" DNA and tell us "the truth". I know where Im standing on that note

The Deuteronomy 28 curses were fulfilled by the ancient Judeans and Israelites. Deuteronomy 28 affirms curses would be brought upon Israel if it was disobedient and violated the Mosaic covenant. The curses include and relate to: death, slavery, slave ships, slavery in Egypt, labor work, occupation, famine, cannibalism, and Israelites dispersing throughout the world, etc.

-

Deuteronomy 28:36
"And the Lord will bring you and your king whom you set over you to a nation that neither you nor nor your fathers have known. And there you shall serve other gods of wood and stone.”

During the Assyrian captivity of the northern ten tribes of Israel in 722 BCE, the Israelite king, Hoshea, was taken captive with the Israelites (2 Kings 17:6). When Babylon sieged Jerusalem and exiled the people of Judah in 586 BCE, the Judite king of Israel, Zedekiah, was also exiled and brought with the Israelites (2 Kings 25:1-7). Thus, Deuteronomy 28:36 was fulfilled by the ancient Judeans and Israelites.

Scripture actually tells us this is when the Deuteronomy 28 curses were fulfilled. Since referring to the Babylonian captivity, Zechariah 1:6, for example, says that the Lord’s commandments “took over” the Israelites. The Hebrew word used here for “took over” is nasag [נָשַׂג]; and it is the same word used in Deuteronomy 28:15 and 45, when mentioning how the Israelites' failure to obey G-d’s commands would lead to the Israelites being “took over” [nasag] by curses. Same word used. This shows the Babylonian captivity was the fulfillment of the Deuteronomy 28 curses.

-

With regard to the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem, and captivity in the Sixth Century BCE, Lamentations 4:10 mentions how the Israelites were starving so bad, they ate their own children: "With their own hands compassionate women have cooked their own children, who became their food when my people were destroyed." This fulfills the curse in Deuteronomy 28:53, which says: “And you shall eat the fruit of your womb, the flesh of your sons and daughters, whom the LORD your G-d has given you, in the siege and in the distress with which your enemies shall distress you."

Deuteronomy 28:63 refers to the Israelites being taken from Israel, by a nation. It says: “And you shall be plucked off the land that you are entering to take possession of it”. In the Deuteronomistic historical context, the land the Israelites were entering and taking possession of here, was the land of Canaan, which they would conquer and rename as Israel.

-

Deuteronomy 28:68
"And the LORD will bring you back in ships to Egypt, a journey that I promised that you should never make again; and there you shall offer yourselves for sale to you enemies as male and female slaves, but there will be no buyer”

The ancient Jews were put on ships and sold as slaves throughout the world by emperors Titus and Hadrian in the First and Second Centuries CE. This is when the Deuteronomic curses were fully fulfilled. In 70 CE the Roman commander Titus, who would later become the emperor, amassed troops and invaded Jerusalem, destroying the Temple and murdering and enslaving the Jewish population (Gary M. Bruce et al., The New Testament in Antiquity, [Zondervan, 2009], p. 49). This happened during the first Jewish war against the Romans, between 66 CE and 70 CE. It led to a great famine in Jerusalem according to the ancient historian Josephus (Josephus, The Wars of the Jews, Book 6, Ch. 3, No. 3, The Works of Josephus, p.737). This fulfills the hunger or famine curses in Deuteronomy 28:48. Furthermore, Josephus tells us that, due to this famine, the Jews were forced to survive by eating their own children (Josephus, The Wars of the Jews, Book 6, Ch. 9, No. 3, The Works of Josephus, p.749), which fulfills the cannibalism curse in Deuteronomy 28:53. Incidentally, these famine curses were also fulfilled during the Babylonian captivity (2 kings 25:3). Roman commander Titus had 97,000 Jews enslaved and 1,100,000 Jews murdered in Jerusalem (Josephus, The Wars of the Jews, Book 5, Ch. 9, No. 3, The Works of Josephus, p. 749). Josephus informs us that those above the age of 17 years old were transported on ships to the Egyptian mines to do labor as slaves. This fulfills the slavery curse in Deuteronomy 28:68; “And the LORD will bring you back in ships, to Egypt" (Deut 28:68). Those that were under 17 years old were sold as slaves, and many others were transported to many other provinces as presents to be destroyed in gladiator games by the sword or by the beast.

Similar situations occurred under Emperor Hadrian’s Roman reign in the next century. Following the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE—slowly, the city was rebuilt and many Jews returned. The Jews even built an altar on the destroyed Temple Mount, and thus temple ritual was temporarily reinstated. The Roman Tenth Legion troops stayed in Jerusalem to keep order. Thereafter, a Jewish resistance arose, known as the Bar Kokhba revolt, which led to another Jewish-Roman war, lasting between 132 CE and 136 CE. The Romans decimated the Jews, murdering 585,000 of them; 50 Jewish outposts and 985 villages were destroyed (Antigone Samellas, Alienation: The Experience of the Eastern Mediterranean, p. 316). These and the previous instances of Jerusalem’s invasions and destruction fulfill the Deuteronomy 28:52 curse, which says: "They shall besiege you in all your towns, until your high and fortified walls, in which you trusted, come down throughout all your land”. At this time many Jews also died due to starvation from famine, and many were enslaved by Emperor Hadrian, who then banned all Jews from entering Jerusalem.

Professor of Jewish history, Shmuel Safrai, notes: “Particularly notorious was the Terebinth market north of Hebron, where Jewish slaves captured by Hadrian were sold; but in such deep contempt and detestation was the nation held, that few were willing to buy them. The market was also glutted with their numbers, so that they were sold at a mere nominal price sometimes thirty for a small piece of money" (S. Safrai, The Era of the Mishna and the Talmud, ed. H. H. Ben-Sasson, A History of the Jewish People, [Harvard University Press, 1996], p. 333). This fulfills the Deuteronomy 28:68 statement, “there you shall offer yourselves to your enemies as male and female slaves, but there will be no buyer.”

Likewise, George Williams quotes, at this time, many Jews: “were sold as slaves . . . at Hebron, or at Gaza, which hence received the name of Hadrian’s Mart, while the remainder were transported to the slave-markets of Egypt, and thence dispersed throughout the world” (George Williams, The Holy City, Cambridge University Press, 2012], p.130). This dispersing of the Jews after being put in slave markets in Egypt fulfills the curse of Deuteronomy 28:64, which says: “Then the Lord will scatter you among all the nations, from one end of the earth to the other. There you will worship other gods-gods of wood and stone, which neither you nor your ancestors have known”. This Deuteronomy scattering curse was also fulfilled during the Assyrian Exile in 722 BCE, where the ten lost tribes of Israel were scattered throughout the world. Thus, all the Deuteronomy 28 curses relating to death, slavery, slave ships, slavery in Egypt, labor work, occupation, famine, cannibalism, and Jews dispersing throughout the world, were clearly fulfilled during these historical Jewish events.

 

[Everythingg]

Nehemiah 13:23-24 demonstrates that the status of a child born to a Jewish father and a Moabite mother is the same as the status of the mother.

I asked a simple question. Can you show an explicitly named Israelite being called by the name of another tribe? And how can someone be an "Ashkenaz Jew" when Ashkenaz was from Japheth and Judah is from Shem?

If you're saying the status is determined by the mother, than David is a Moabite. Oh but I guess when Nehemiah says "Moabite" he means the tribal Moabites but when its said in Ruth, it really means Israelite (though its never explicitly stated)...

The regathering of Israel: Ezekiel 34:11-12, 37:21-22; Jeremiah 23:5-8. In the case of Jeremiah 23:5-8, the regathering in Israel is said to happen after the first-century advent. The regathering of Israel took place in 1948 when we were given our land back in a remarkable episode of history. During this recreation of the State of Israel, we saw mass migration of Jews—from all over—back to Israel, in direct fulfillment of these prophecies.

Since you mentioned Ezekiel:

Ezekiel 20
With a strong hand, an outstretched arm, and outpoured wrath I will bring you from the peoples and gather you from the lands to which you were scattered. 35And I will bring you into the wilderness of the nations, where I will enter into judgment with you face to face

When did this happen?

The Deuteronomy 28 curses were fulfilled by the ancient Judeans and Israelites. Deuteronomy 28 affirms curses would be brought upon Israel if it was disobedient and violated the Mosaic covenant. The curses include and relate to: death, slavery, slave ships, slavery in Egypt, labor work, occupation, famine, cannibalism, and Israelites dispersing throughout the world, etc.

How come black people in the Americas fit this prophecy moreso than any other group in modern times? Where is the holocaust mentioned in the bible?

 

[Koichos]

If you're saying the status is determined by the mother, than David is a Moabite.

David's mother is an Israelite; if Ruth were a Moabite by blood, that would mean David's paternal line is blemished, though we know that not to be true.

 

[Everythingg]

David's mother is an Israelite; if Ruth were a Moabite by blood, that would mean David's paternal line is blemished, though we know that not to be true.

Ruth is a moabite. And if we determine lineage by the mother, her sons would be like her, a moabite. And so would her grandchildren. And so would her great grandchildren. Since only your people do that and not the people of the book, it doesnt matter what Ruth was. Her husband was a Hebrew, therefore so are her children.

I also see that you didnt provide ONE place where a clear cut Israelite is referred to by the title of another tribe. You didnt answer Ashkenaz being from Japheth yet you telling us theres such a thing as an "Ashkenaz Jew (Jew being from Shem). You didnt answer when your people saw God face to face in the wilderness like Ezekiel said the Israelites would BEFORE getting their land. You didnt answer why black people in the Americas match up with Deuteronomy 28 moreso than any other modern group in the world. And you didnt bring where a "holocaust" is mentioned in the bible.. Not all of us are "goyim" like some of you like to refer to the general public as. So some of us can see thru the bullshyt yall try to pass of as history and truth...

 

[Koichos]

And if we determine lineage by the mother, her sons would be like her, a moabite. And so would her grandchildren. And so would her great grandchildren.

One's paternal grandmother is not part of one's maternal line.

Since only your people do that and not the people of the book, it doesnt matter what Ruth was. Her husband was a Hebrew, therefore so are her children.

Nehemiah 13:23-24
Also in those days, I saw the Jews who had married Ashdodite, Ammonite, and Moabite women.
and their children spoke half in the speech of Ashdod, and could not speak in the Jews' language, but according to the language of each people.

Nehemiah 13:25
So I contended with them and cursed them, struck some of them and pulled out their hair, and made them swear by God, saying, "You shall not give your daughters as wives to their sons, nor take their daughters for your sons or yourselves.

You didnt answer Ashkenaz being from Japheth yet you telling us theres such a thing as an "Ashkenaz Jew (Jew being from Shem).

Ashkenazi Jews are not descendants of the Biblical figure, Ashkenaz. The word "Ashkenaz" in Medieval Hebrew referred to the land of Germany, ergo the Jews who settled in Ashkenaz [Germany] became known as Ashkenazim (likewise, Spain was termed "Sepharad", and the Jews who settled there, Sephardim). Eventually the term came to include the Jews of northern France and England as well as northern Italy and parts of Central Europe. As Jews migrated into the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the term broadened to include Eastern European Jews as well. Further, Rashi, writing in the latter half of the Eleventh Century CE, spoke of both the language of Ashkenaz and the country of Ashkenaz in referring to Germany. The first use of Ashkenazi to refer to a Jewish population appears as early as the Tenth Century CE in Jewish rabbinic and diplomatic writings under Islam. Perhaps the oldest comes from Baghdad, around 933 CE (Saadia Gaon’s Commentary on Daniel 7:8), and it is used in reference to the Jews of northwestern Europe.

You didnt answer when your people saw God face to face in the wilderness like Ezekiel said the Israelites would BEFORE getting their land.

Ezekiel 20:35 is referring to the Babylonian Exile when it speaks of being in the wilderness of the peoples. This is further supported by Ezekiel 19:13 which calls Babylonia a wilderness. Ezekiel 20:36 then parallels the wilderness of the land of Egypt with the upcoming wilderness of the peoples of Babylonia to which the Jews would be exiled. Then, in 539 BCE, Cyrus would issue an order for the return of Jews to the Land of Israel and for the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the Temple.

 

[Everythingg]

Only if she has daughters, and they have daughters, who have daughters, and so on. As soon as a male is born, it stops with him.

Biblically speaking, only the man determined tribal status. Its only with your people, who arent the same as the people in the book, that changed it

Nehemiah 13:23-24
Also in those days, I saw the Jews who had married Ashdodite, Ammonite, and Moabite women.
And half their children were speaking Ashdodite, and they did not know how to speak Hebrew, and [so it was] with the language of every people.

Nehemiah 13:25
So I contended with them and cursed them, struck some of them and pulled out their hair, and made them swear by God, saying, "You shall not give your daughters as wives to their sons, nor take their daughters for your sons or yourselves.

Language has nothing to do with tribal status. Then theres this:

Jeremiah 17:4
And thou, even thyself, shalt discontinue from thine heritage that I gave thee; and I will cause thee to serve thine enemies in the land which thou knowest not: for ye have kindled a fire in mine anger, which shall burn for ever.

Language is a part of heritage..

Ashkenazi Jews are not descendants of the Biblical figure, Ashkenaz.

Sure, guy... Hebrews later on named themselves after a descendant of Japheth when they are supposed to be descendants of Shem.. What you eat dont make me shyt... But you are trying to feed me some BS... Im not buying it at all, and thankfully more and more people arent buying it.. It was fun though, if you continue to repeat yourself in remixed ways, I'll shoot you a friendly goodbye. Hopefully the readers can take whats been said here, and go from there...